Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26942886›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2016

Impact of molecular profiling on overall survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Thomas J Herzog, David Spetzler, Nick Xiao, Ken Burnett, Todd Maney, Andreas Voss, Sandeep Reddy, Robert Burger, Thomas Krivak, Matthew Powell and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02678754 (A Registry of Caris Life Sciences® Molecular Intelligence™ Service), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02678754 terminatednot on this map

A Registry of Caris Life Sciences® Molecular Intelligence™ Service (Biomarker Assessment Results) Intended for Correlation With Cancer Clinical Outcomes

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCaris Science, Inc.Ran2010 to 2019Enrolled4,981ConditionsSolid TumorsArmsNo intervention required, purely observational
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Value-based genomics.Oncotarget · 2018
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas J HerzogUniversity of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
David SpetzlerCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Nick XiaoCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Ken BurnettCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Todd ManeyCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Andreas VossCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Sandeep ReddyCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Robert BurgerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas KrivakWestern Pennsylvania Gynecological Oncology, Mars, PA, USA.
Matthew PowellWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Michael FriedlanderPrince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
William McGuireVCU Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, USA.
Caris Life Sciences (United States) · USPrince of Wales Hospital · AUUniversity of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USVirginia Cancer Institute · USWashington University in St. Louis · USWestern Pennsylvania Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have limited treatment options. Studies have reported that biomarker profiling may help predict patient response to available treatments. This study sought to determine the value of biomarker profiling in recurrent EOC.

resultsPatients in the Matched cohort had a median OS of 36 months compared to 27 months for patients in the Unmatched cohort (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.96; p < 0.03). Individual biomarkers were analyzed, with TUBB3, and PGP prognostic for survival. Biomarker analysis also identified a molecular subtype (positive for at least two of the following markers: ERCC1, RRM1, TUBB3, PGP) with particularly poor overall survival.

methods224 patients from a commercial registry (NCT02678754) with stage IIIC/IV EOC at diagnosis, or restaged to IIIC/IV EOC at the time of molecular profiling, were retrospectively divided into two cohorts based on whether or not the drugs they received matched their profile recommendations. The Matched cohort received no drugs predicted to be lack-of-benefit while the Unmatched cohort received at least one drug predicted to be lack-of-benefit. Profile biomarker/drug associations were based on multiple test platforms including immunohistochemistry, fluorescent in situ hybridization and DNA sequencing.

conclusionsThis report demonstrates the ability of multi-platform molecular profiling to identify EOC patients at risk of inferior survival. It also suggests a potential beneficial role of avoidance of lack-of-benefit therapies which, when administered, resulted in decreased survival relative to patients who received only therapies predicted to be of benefit.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOutcome Assessment, Health CareOvarian NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumorcancermolecularovarianprofilingsurvival

Identifiers

PMID26942886
PMCPMC4991422
OpenAlexW2291882330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.